We discussed survey analysis and decided to have virtual meetings to compile a 1-2 page survey summary to share with the administration team and then the larger community.
4-15-2010
Surveys were finalized and plans to administer them were completed.
2-11-2010
Attendees: Andy Yale, Michael Peters, and Dennis Charsky, Mike Pliss
We agreed to streamline our efforts and survey Teachers, Principals, and Students at grades 5, 8, and 11. We feared that otherwise we would be swimming in too much data to meaningfully evaluate.
Also, we decided to develop and distribute a survey based on ISTE's essential conditions to Tech committee chairs, tech mentors, and librarians as those people comprise a knowledgeable focus group relative to technology and learning. Andy and Dennis agreed to develop this instrument.
We reviewed surveys in detail and we believe with good result. Survey Monkey vs. Google Docs?
We decided to put the Student Survey in each and compare the results.
Surveys are @:
-Here is the link to the Student Survey onGoogle Docs: http://COLTStudentSurvey.notlong.com
-Here is the link to the Student Survey on Survey Monkey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZHCDFRW
-Here is the "packaged" Google Docs summary:
Attendees: Andy Yale, Michael Peters, and Dennis Charsky
We reviewed our intention to survey stakeholders and our timeline and decided having possibly as many as seven surveys was too much. We want to get the surveys out at the beginning of March and analyze the results by the end of that month.
We decided to have only three surveys: a student survey (tailored for three levels), a teacher survey and a school principal survey. Perhaps other surveys will inform our decisions at later date. Having only three surveys will allow us to focus well on learning and teaching in our preliminary audit.
Andy agreed to look at the student surveys, to be given at grade levels: fifth, eighth and eleventh. Dennis agreed to look at the principal and teacher surveys. Our plan is to submit a final draft of the surveys to the entire audit committee prior to the February 11 meeting. After the survey questions are determined to be acceptable, Michael has agreed to put the questions in Google forms which we determined would be a satisfactory survey software instrument.
We then opened the meeting to a discussion of what else we could do as a committee. What procedures policies and practices might deserve the attention of an audit and process review committee. Andy had previously posed the question to Mike Pliss and his responses, as well as others are included below. These questions may serve as a starting point for further discussion by the committee. What else what might we consider?
Mike Pliss:
How will we select district hardware & software standards?
How will we evaluate requests for exceptions to our district standards?
How will we evaluate student & staff technical proficiency levels?
How will we ensure that achieving & maintaining technical proficiency for all students & staff are part of every school's goals?
How will we ensure that technical proficiency is a dimension of evaluation of prospective staff?
How will COLT ensure representation on interview committees especially for future leadership?
Andy Yale:
Are schools equitably equipped? How can we tell? If not, what can and should we do about it? What does equitable mean in this context?
Are repair issues resolved in the shortest possible time frame?
Is communication about the status of repair issues or problems robust and effective?
Are there ways we can do a better job helping schools plan for their technology needs relative to student learning? (Sharing expertise and vision between committees, providing central guidance)
How much technology education staff development (training and support) is appropriate, given our resources.
Can we set up hardware configuration options so our technology is appropriate to the uses; a hammer for nails, a sledge hammer for driving spikes. i.e. N-computing, with a mobile Mac lab in the wings for multimedia applications.
Michael Peters:
Repairs and orders info needs more transparency and clarity.
Sharing and resources on the building level- how can sharing be improved- both of resources and knowledge.
Dennis Charsky:
Purchasing of Hardware and software- who gets what, how long do people have machines before replacement, continuous reevaluation and auditing of what is needed. Flow chart for acquisition and distribution might add transparency.
COLT can create some questions for interviews that relate to educational technology.
How can we support the required change in culture?
Attendees: Andy Yale, Dennis Charsky, Jennifer Groff, Mike Pliss
We reviewed surveys for various stakeholder groups and decided to place them on the wiki for further review. If you are reading this, please comment on the questions to help refine them.
We think these surveys will provide a snapshot of perceptions of the state of instructional technology in ICSD.
We envision launching these surveys in early March, just after the COLT newsletter goes out to the community, including information on the surveys in the newsletter. This will allow some time for compilation prior to submission of the technology plan. Data may also be useful during this budget cycle.
Mike Pliss agreed to investigate use of Survey Monkey. We will compare its features with other survey options such as Google Forms and MyLearningPlan.
Andy agreed to locate and post a survey for parents and has done so.
We had a discussion concerning communication, the problems relative to District email, and how such issues act to undermine staff enthusiasm for technology integration. Mike Pliss indicated that underfunding of technology over several years has increased the frequency of technology difficulties. He maintained that he is continuously communicating, but that there are always ways to do it better.
We agreed to meet 1/28 and 2/11 at 4PM. The 1/28 meeting will be held at Boynton.
Attendees: Andy Yale, Dennis Charsky, Jennifer Groff, Michael Peters, Shirley Kennedy, Mike Pliss
Andy noted that one of our first steps – to organize a framework for our efforts; models include:
--list from article (Hannafin) – six conditions * --list of essential conditions from NSTE
Mike Pliss explains resources he added to the wiki
– NYS Comptroller survey (most districts struggle with same issues as ICSD);
-- Links in the chain – goals for e-learning created by ICSD group, not adopted but helped educate the board (Jan 2008)
--ICSD March 2007 audit – tech dept contracted GST-BOCES to do an external audit of the tech department (not the whole district)
Big picture view – look at one element – how much could we update something like that in-house?
Mike Pliss – BOCES is set up to support us auditing ourselves
As article states – there's value in having audit done from outside (but how to afford it?)
if we Go through BOCES, can apply for state aid, etc.
Board – needs to hear outside / diverse stakeholders talk about IT, not IT itself
COLT could be a permanent workgroup
Board – knows we (COLT) exist, but not sure to what extent
Andy explains tech assessment options for students (& perhaps staff) that were developed last year
A goal -- To develop survey/other audit that is not burdensome, get back to people in short order, let them know next steps
Communicate – what do we want to communicate, how do we do it?
Conceptual framework from article:
Dennis C asks are we just focusing on the schools, or do we want to assess business aspects of running a school (disaster recovery, running a school, etc)?
Mike Pliss: systems performance might fall under robust access bullet
Andy Y: it's all connected; if we focus on learning/tech side of things, he'd be happiest
Shirley K: asks COLT – what does it stand for?
AndyY: Committee on learning and technology
Andy Y- -can we adopt these six bullets (handout) as a framework?
Mike Peters – wants to be able to come back to colleagues and address their concerns
Is part of the tech committee, hears frustrations of not being able to use technology, would like to know what is happening across district
Discussion of the tech committee structure in district (decentralized model)
Discussion that refers back to article (stressing vision) as reflecting some centralized vision/boils down to the superintendent;
We discuss need for administration to have technology vision
Shirley K: notes that dept chairs who are visionary and ask for stuff, get it, it is vision and leadership
Leaders are vision carriers –
Mike Pliss – creating momentum means educating leadership – We have to be successful at convincing superintendent –
Shirley K—notes that key people related to technology must be on search committee for new superintendent;
Tremendous opportunity.
Benchmarking – is one way of assessing (comparing to other school districts)
Dennis C— if vision is what we are after – survey is not where to do it – use focus groups to look ahead
Shirley K – notes that COLT as a whole will work on vision piece –we (as subcommittee) don't need to do that – focus on what we can do
Dennis C – one things surveys could do – figure out
% of educators (who is resistor, who is innovator) – would give percentages/data
provides benchmarking/ vision for the future
Shirley K – in exploring google docs surveys – did an "audit" of equipment in dept., Included questions about learning style
As a way to address professional development based on learning style (ie one on one)
Moving on:
we agree to use 6 conditions* as a framework
Go through
? what thinking
? what metrics
? are we a focus group for each of these conditions
*Hannafins six conditions, which are not linear or hierarchical, are:
o Forward-Thinking, Shared Vision. Effective school districts build a shared, research-based, community-based vision that prepares students to succeed in a knowledge-based, information-rich society. The vision is clear and easily articulated by all stakeholders, and is communicated often to community members.
o Educator Proficiency with Effective Teaching and Learning Practices. In successful school districts, educators are proficient users of technology in teaching and assessing a variety of effective learning practices.
o Digital Age Equity. Effective districts address the digital divide by providing resources and strategies, ensuring that all students, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, gender, and special needs, are engaging in programs consistent with the vision.
o Effective Teaching and Learning Practices. In effective districts, learning environments are often characterized by powerful, research-based strategies that use technologies.
o Robust Access Anywhere, Anytime. Effective districts provide and support anywhere, anytime access to adequate and strategically-placed technology with adequate connectivity and bandwidth.
o Systems and Leadership. Effective districts 'reengineer' themselves into high-performance learning organizations by initiating high performance standards, cultivating and rewarding creativity and innovation, requiring administrator proficiencies, providing comprehensive professional development, prioritizing adequate technology funding.
next meeting/focus?
As deadline for tech plan
Or long term – continually
If we can inform tech plan, that would be good
Urgency – doing the best to be our best
meet Every 3 weeks?
Short term – inform tech plan
Long term – inform leadership
mid year cuts, board budget process
tech plan due on March time plan
working draft in March
we could keep working on it after March
budget has to be adopted in May, usually start in January
next meeting: Tues. Jan 12 @ 3:45
Set agenda – what we will discuss and try to accomplish
Use wiki
Look at questions from survey in article; consider for order, content, etc.
homework for next meeting:
Dennis, Andy – students
Mike Pliss, Jennifer – admin.
Shirley, Mike Peters -- teachers
Table of Contents
5-25-2010
We discussed survey analysis and decided to have virtual meetings to compile a 1-2 page survey summary to share with the administration team and then the larger community.4-15-2010
Surveys were finalized and plans to administer them were completed.2-11-2010
Attendees: Andy Yale, Michael Peters, and Dennis Charsky, Mike PlissWe agreed to streamline our efforts and survey Teachers, Principals, and Students at grades 5, 8, and 11. We feared that otherwise we would be swimming in too much data to meaningfully evaluate.
Also, we decided to develop and distribute a survey based on ISTE's essential conditions to Tech committee chairs, tech mentors, and librarians as those people comprise a knowledgeable focus group relative to technology and learning. Andy and Dennis agreed to develop this instrument.
We reviewed surveys in detail and we believe with good result. Survey Monkey vs. Google Docs?
We decided to put the Student Survey in each and compare the results.
Surveys are @:
-Here is the link to the Student Survey onGoogle Docs: http://COLTStudentSurvey.notlong.com
-Here is the link to the Student Survey on Survey Monkey http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/ZHCDFRW
-Here is the "packaged" Google Docs summary:
A spreadsheet is also available.
-Results summary from Survey Monkey:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/MySurvey_Responses.aspx?sm=NA%2bCGbvJyipjsDwYS2XyrBwqxtSsuo6q3ve7Gqipsg0%3d
-Essential Conditions Survey
1-28-2010
Table of Contents
Attendees: Andy Yale, Michael Peters, and Dennis Charsky
We reviewed our intention to survey stakeholders and our timeline and decided having possibly as many as seven surveys was too much. We want to get the surveys out at the beginning of March and analyze the results by the end of that month.
We decided to have only three surveys: a student survey (tailored for three levels), a teacher survey and a school principal survey. Perhaps other surveys will inform our decisions at later date. Having only three surveys will allow us to focus well on learning and teaching in our preliminary audit.
Andy agreed to look at the student surveys, to be given at grade levels: fifth, eighth and eleventh. Dennis agreed to look at the principal and teacher surveys. Our plan is to submit a final draft of the surveys to the entire audit committee prior to the February 11 meeting. After the survey questions are determined to be acceptable, Michael has agreed to put the questions in Google forms which we determined would be a satisfactory survey software instrument.
We then opened the meeting to a discussion of what else we could do as a committee. What procedures policies and practices might deserve the attention of an audit and process review committee. Andy had previously posed the question to Mike Pliss and his responses, as well as others are included below. These questions may serve as a starting point for further discussion by the committee. What else what might we consider?
Mike Pliss:
- How will we select district hardware & software standards?
- How will we evaluate requests for exceptions to our district standards?
- How will we evaluate student & staff technical proficiency levels?
- How will we ensure that achieving & maintaining technical proficiency for all students & staff are part of every school's goals?
- How will we ensure that technical proficiency is a dimension of evaluation of prospective staff?
- How will COLT ensure representation on interview committees especially for future leadership?
Andy Yale:- Are schools equitably equipped? How can we tell? If not, what can and should we do about it? What does equitable mean in this context?
- Are repair issues resolved in the shortest possible time frame?
- Is communication about the status of repair issues or problems robust and effective?
- Are there ways we can do a better job helping schools plan for their technology needs relative to student learning? (Sharing expertise and vision between committees, providing central guidance)
- How much technology education staff development (training and support) is appropriate, given our resources.
- Can we set up hardware configuration options so our technology is appropriate to the uses; a hammer for nails, a sledge hammer for driving spikes. i.e. N-computing, with a mobile Mac lab in the wings for multimedia applications.
Michael Peters:- Repairs and orders info needs more transparency and clarity.
- Sharing and resources on the building level- how can sharing be improved- both of resources and knowledge.
Dennis Charsky:1-12-2010
Table of Contents
Attendees: Andy Yale, Dennis Charsky, Jennifer Groff, Mike Pliss
We reviewed surveys for various stakeholder groups and decided to place them on the wiki for further review. If you are reading this, please comment on the questions to help refine them.
We think these surveys will provide a snapshot of perceptions of the state of instructional technology in ICSD.
We envision launching these surveys in early March, just after the COLT newsletter goes out to the community, including information on the surveys in the newsletter. This will allow some time for compilation prior to submission of the technology plan. Data may also be useful during this budget cycle.
Mike Pliss agreed to investigate use of Survey Monkey. We will compare its features with other survey options such as Google Forms and MyLearningPlan.
Andy agreed to locate and post a survey for parents and has done so.
We had a discussion concerning communication, the problems relative to District email, and how such issues act to undermine staff enthusiasm for technology integration. Mike Pliss indicated that underfunding of technology over several years has increased the frequency of technology difficulties. He maintained that he is continuously communicating, but that there are always ways to do it better.
We agreed to meet 1/28 and 2/11 at 4PM. The 1/28 meeting will be held at Boynton.
12-8-2009
Table of Contents
Attendees: Andy Yale, Dennis Charsky, Jennifer Groff, Michael Peters, Shirley Kennedy, Mike PlissAndy noted that one of our first steps – to organize a framework for our efforts; models include:
--list from article (Hannafin) – six conditions *
--list of essential conditions from NSTE
Mike Pliss explains resources he added to the wiki
– NYS Comptroller survey (most districts struggle with same issues as ICSD);
-- Links in the chain – goals for e-learning created by ICSD group, not adopted but helped educate the board (Jan 2008)
--ICSD March 2007 audit – tech dept contracted GST-BOCES to do an external audit of the tech department (not the whole district)
Big picture view – look at one element – how much could we update something like that in-house?
Mike Pliss – BOCES is set up to support us auditing ourselves
As article states – there's value in having audit done from outside (but how to afford it?)
if we Go through BOCES, can apply for state aid, etc.
Board – needs to hear outside / diverse stakeholders talk about IT, not IT itself
COLT could be a permanent workgroup
Board – knows we (COLT) exist, but not sure to what extent
Andy explains tech assessment options for students (& perhaps staff) that were developed last year
A goal -- To develop survey/other audit that is not burdensome, get back to people in short order, let them know next steps
Communicate – what do we want to communicate, how do we do it?
Conceptual framework from article:
Dennis C asks are we just focusing on the schools, or do we want to assess business aspects of running a school (disaster recovery, running a school, etc)?
Mike Pliss: systems performance might fall under robust access bullet
Andy Y: it's all connected; if we focus on learning/tech side of things, he'd be happiest
Shirley K: asks COLT – what does it stand for?
AndyY: Committee on learning and technology
Andy Y- -can we adopt these six bullets (handout) as a framework?
Mike Peters – wants to be able to come back to colleagues and address their concerns
Is part of the tech committee, hears frustrations of not being able to use technology, would like to know what is happening across district
Discussion of the tech committee structure in district (decentralized model)
Discussion that refers back to article (stressing vision) as reflecting some centralized vision/boils down to the superintendent;
We discuss need for administration to have technology vision
Shirley K: notes that dept chairs who are visionary and ask for stuff, get it, it is vision and leadership
Leaders are vision carriers –
Mike Pliss – creating momentum means educating leadership – We have to be successful at convincing superintendent –
Shirley K—notes that key people related to technology must be on search committee for new superintendent;
Tremendous opportunity.
Benchmarking – is one way of assessing (comparing to other school districts)
Dennis C— if vision is what we are after – survey is not where to do it – use focus groups to look ahead
Shirley K – notes that COLT as a whole will work on vision piece –we (as subcommittee) don't need to do that – focus on what we can do
Dennis C – one things surveys could do – figure out
% of educators (who is resistor, who is innovator) – would give percentages/data
provides benchmarking/ vision for the future
Shirley K – in exploring google docs surveys – did an "audit" of equipment in dept., Included questions about learning style
As a way to address professional development based on learning style (ie one on one)
Moving on:
we agree to use 6 conditions* as a framework
Go through
? what thinking
? what metrics
? are we a focus group for each of these conditions
* Hannafins six conditions, which are not linear or hierarchical, are:
o Forward-Thinking, Shared Vision. Effective school districts build a shared, research-based, community-based vision that prepares students to succeed in a knowledge-based, information-rich society. The vision is clear and easily articulated by all stakeholders, and is communicated often to community members.
o Educator Proficiency with Effective Teaching and Learning Practices. In successful school districts, educators are proficient users of technology in teaching and assessing a variety of effective learning practices.
o Digital Age Equity. Effective districts address the digital divide by providing resources and strategies, ensuring that all students, regardless of race, socioeconomic status, gender, and special needs, are engaging in programs consistent with the vision.
o Effective Teaching and Learning Practices. In effective districts, learning environments are often characterized by powerful, research-based strategies that use technologies.
o Robust Access Anywhere, Anytime. Effective districts provide and support anywhere, anytime access to adequate and strategically-placed technology with adequate connectivity and bandwidth.
o Systems and Leadership. Effective districts 'reengineer' themselves into high-performance learning organizations by initiating high performance standards, cultivating and rewarding creativity and innovation, requiring administrator proficiencies, providing comprehensive professional development, prioritizing adequate technology funding.
next meeting/focus?
As deadline for tech plan
Or long term – continually
If we can inform tech plan, that would be good
Urgency – doing the best to be our best
meet Every 3 weeks?
Short term – inform tech plan
Long term – inform leadership
mid year cuts, board budget process
tech plan due on March time plan
working draft in March
we could keep working on it after March
budget has to be adopted in May, usually start in January
next meeting: Tues. Jan 12 @ 3:45
Set agenda – what we will discuss and try to accomplish
Use wiki
Look at questions from survey in article; consider for order, content, etc.
homework for next meeting:
Dennis, Andy – students
Mike Pliss, Jennifer – admin.
Shirley, Mike Peters -- teachers